Nobody has shown which kind of exercise is best
218 trials compared walking, yoga, strength training, mixed aerobic work and tai chi. All five landed in the same moderate band. Exactly one of the 218 had a low risk of bias.
Top of the evidence hierarchy, independently funded. how we score evidence
Caveat on this rating: Confidence in these numbers is low by the authors' own grading: 1 of 218 studies met the Cochrane criteria for low risk of bias, and CINeMA confidence was low for walking or jogging and very low for every other modality. The credible intervals for the five modalities overlap heavily, so the order above is not an established ranking and must not be read as one. The authors name the blinding problem themselves and call for future trials to blind participants and staff. Results did appear robust to publication bias. A correction was published (BMJ 2024;385:q1024) and is logged as unverified - the BMJ site refuses automated fetch - but nothing quoted here depends on a precise ranking. Effect sizes drawn from different literatures are not directly comparable, so this row deliberately does not set these numbers against antidepressant trial results.
Nobody has shown which kind of exercise is best. The five kinds that have been tested all land in the same band.
This is the largest synthesis done: 218 randomised trials, 495 treatment arms, 14,170 people who met clinical criteria for major depression. Published in the BMJ in 2024, with no funding and no declared conflicts.
Against active controls the effects were moderate and heavily overlapping: walking or jogging -0.62, yoga -0.55, strength training -0.49, mixed aerobic -0.43, tai chi or qigong -0.42.
One study out of 218 had a low risk of bias
The authors put that in their own abstract, and graded their confidence low for walking and very low for everything else. You cannot blind someone to whether they went for a run.
Two findings more useful than the ranking. Harder work did better - effects tracked the intensity prescribed. And yoga and strength training had the best dropout rates.
Worth asking
What is the smallest version of this I would still be doing in six weeks?
Source
Effect of exercise for depression: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials — Noetel M, Sanders T, Gallardo-Gómez D, et al. (2024)
Top-tier peer-reviewed journal
Read the source: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-075847
DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2023-075847
How this was scored
- Study design
- Meta-analysis of randomised trials
- Funding
- No external funding
- Published in
- Top-tier peer-reviewed journal
- Sample size
- 14,170
- Preregistered
- Yes
- Conflicts disclosed
- Yes
- Independent of proponent
- Yes
- Retracted
- No
Read the full scoring rubric, including what it can't tell you.
Published August 31, 2026.
Questions
How strong is the evidence behind this?
Resolv rates this source "gold standard". Top of the evidence hierarchy, independently funded. It scores 100 out of 100 on our published rubric. One caveat travels with that badge: Confidence in these numbers is low by the authors' own grading: 1 of 218 studies met the Cochrane criteria for low risk of bias, and CINeMA confidence was low for walking or jogging and very low for every other modality. The credible intervals for the five modalities overlap heavily, so the order above is not an established ranking and must not be read as one. The authors name the blinding problem themselves and call for future trials to blind participants and staff. Results did appear robust to publication bias. A correction was published (BMJ 2024;385:q1024) and is logged as unverified - the BMJ site refuses automated fetch - but nothing quoted here depends on a precise ranking. Effect sizes drawn from different literatures are not directly comparable, so this row deliberately does not set these numbers against antidepressant trial results. The score is calculated from recorded facts about the source — study design, funding, publication venue, sample size, preregistration — not typed in by an editor.
What is the source for this?
Effect of exercise for depression: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials — Noetel M, Sanders T, Gallardo-Gómez D, et al. (2024). Published in: Top-tier peer-reviewed journal. DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2023-075847. The full source is linked on this page so you can read it yourself.
Who paid for this research, and does that matter?
Study design: Meta-analysis of randomised trials. Funding: No external funding. The researchers were independent of whoever benefits from the result. Industry sponsorship is one of the most reliably measured biases in medicine, which is why funding carries real weight in the score rather than sitting in a footnote.
Is this medical advice?
This is information to bring to your prescriber, not medical advice and not a reason to change anything on your own. Nothing here is an instruction to stop or reduce a medication. If you are in crisis, call or text 988.
This is information to bring to your prescriber, not medical advice and not a reason to change anything on your own. Nothing here is an instruction to stop or reduce a medication. If you are in crisis, call or text 988.